Is there not something disingenuous and disrespectful in claiming that an opponent's views are not sincere or belonging to themselves, but rather unconsciously motivated by psychological insecurities, social power dynamics and ideology?

Was there any recorded case of Kant exercising his ethics and perhaps being put in an awkward social situation (I will not lie, I do want to see Kant put in an awkward situation!)? In every day life, one must tell lies every now and then, and it is an accepted part of society (so I think). I find it really hard for Kant to exercise his ethics.

I have recently become very interested in philosophy and have recently decided to work through Plato's Republic. However, I am already a little confused with Book I. Ideally; I should like to understand Book I before I move on. What confuses me is how Socrates presents his arguments, or rather how he undermines the arguments of others. It almost seems that all of what Socrates says is trickery. I think a good example of what I'm saying is the "Analogy of the Arts". Socrates uses the analogy to convince Polemarchus that "justice is the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies". So far, this analogy seems to make sense and I would agree with Socrates. However, Socrates goes on to use the analogy to make it appear that Justice is of no use in times of peace. Really? At this point I believe that the analogy has been taken too far and has been taken in such literal understanding that it has been stretched beyond context. Another problem I am having is how specific Socrates is getting in...

If elegance or simplicity is an indicator of truth in math or science, is this principle inductive? For instance: when a theorist claims simplicity in support of his theory, is he saying in effect "Well, in the past I've found that simpler theories tend to be correct; so simplicity should be taken to favor my theory in this case." Or is there supposed to be something else, something intrinsic to simplicity, perhaps, which makes it significant?

At what point does the parent become more "observer" than "manager" with regard to parenting issues? I've always tried to maintain a "value-driven" approach; no helicopter parenting. I've stressed "doing your best" rather than "making a grade," with regard to schoolwork. I've given books as gifts, encouraged them to find something they love as a guide to helping to find a vocation, etc. What I'm struggling with is seeing my 19-year old college freshman show some major blind spots with regards to how he conducts his relationships with family. He's arrogant and disrespectful at times, and will never apologize when confronted about his behavior. His first impulse is to make excuses to justify his behavior and, if failing that, will immediately go to blaming the other person for his perceived contribution to the situation. He's extremely smart scholastically, healthy, nice-looking, and is likely to be successful at anything he decides to do. How does a parent deal with an adult child who's not ready...

Why is it that, in so many languages, the same word (in English, "wrong") can mean both "false" (e.g., in "that answer is wrong") and "improper" (e.g., in "it is wrong to steal")? Is there some important thing common to falsity and immorality? And is "wrong" the word for it?

There are some moral issues where opponents or supporters use pragmatic arguments to support their moral standpoint. For example, people might say promiscuity is immoral because of the risk of diseases; or that abortion is morally permissible because of the inconvenience of unwanted children, or that it is immoral because of the risk of damage to the body. My question is this: to what extent are pragmatic arguments relevant in discussions of morality? That promiscuity brings with it the risk of disease is an extrinsic problem, not an intrinsic one - in a world without STDs, it would no longer be relevant. The problem of unwanted children being an economic burden is also only relevant as long as it really is an economic burden - a rich woman with an unwanted child could easily hire a nanny and build some extra rooms onto her house, and the problem disappears. In both cases, the problem that disappears under the right circumstances can't really be a moral problem, can it?

Without considering the arguments that there was ever a Jewish Holocaust can I be certain that such a thing happened just because I've read about it in my history books in school?

What is supernatural? All right, I know this might sound really broad but I think I can specify and clarify it a little better if I explain what I mean. According to Wikipedia supernatural is anything above or beyond what one holds to be natural or exists outside natural law and the observable universe. If a supernatural being/thing exists, there could be only two scenarios; one would be a supernatural being/thing which can interact with everyday material that we can sense (ie. matter, photons, gravity weak force, strong force, electromagnitism essentially anything that exists) and in that case it would have to have its own mechanisms wich we can observe test and learn (there is an assumption here that everything that interacts with us has a 'mechanism' or a set of rules by which it behaves), which would mean it is 'scientific' and not supernatural. The other scenario is if it couldn't interact with our physical world, in which case it would be outside the natural law of the observable universe, but...

Has technology gone too far. With stem-cell research, artificial intelligence, bionics, etc. has technology made or is it making humans lethargic? Will we someday not know how to do things for ourselves? With all the advancements in extending age, and overpopulation ever present, will this be the end? Do any of the past philosophers like Kant, Plato Aristotle mention technology or its outcome?